THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

97 (Ker.) has held that the business profit is to be computed necessarily after setting off unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from previous years. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

section 80 if return is not filed within due date. In the instant case total loss of Rs.1,76,97,290/- was allowed to be carried forward in the assessment which consists of unabsorbed depreciation

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

97,432.00 2.1 Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee was letting out a hall to public for conducting various programmes and collecting hall charges which is amounting to Rs.78,55,580/-, the activities of the assessee are not charitable in 2 I.T.A. Nos. 327&507/Coch/2019 nature and the second proviso to section 2(15) is applicable

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

97,432.00 2.1 Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee was letting out a hall to public for conducting various programmes and collecting hall charges which is amounting to Rs.78,55,580/-, the activities of the assessee are not charitable in 2 I.T.A. Nos. 327&507/Coch/2019 nature and the second proviso to section 2(15) is applicable

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

97,96,846/-. 4. In the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order, an amount of Rs.26,62,83,280/- has been mentioned as refund issued on 22-2-2010. As per our workings, no such refund has been issued in the light of order dated 12-1-2011. 5. Interest u/s.234D amounting to Rs.5

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

section 80C; disallowance of business promotion expenses; disallowance of 33% of vehicle 4 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar expenses along with depreciation on the vehicle; and addition on account of short-term capital gains. We have also examined the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, while respectfully relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd [2022] 145 taxmann.com 97 (Pune – Trib.), which is authored by the one of the Hon'ble Members of this order (AM), took a view after making a reference of its earlier decisions in the case

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

97 CCH 219, learned AR submitted that there could not be a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, when there was no exempt income claimed by an assessee. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relying on CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014, submitted that there could be disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, even when there was no exempt income

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

97 CCH 219, learned AR submitted that there could not be a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, when there was no exempt income claimed by an assessee. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relying on CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014, submitted that there could be disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, even when there was no exempt income

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

97 CCH 219, learned AR submitted that there could not be a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, when there was no exempt income claimed by an assessee. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relying on CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014, submitted that there could be disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, even when there was no exempt income

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold improvements of Rs. 17,16,427/- d) Disallowance on account of excess depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold improvements of Rs. 17,16,427/- d) Disallowance on account of excess depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii